Elias Bejjani’s writings and political commentaries represent a sustained, highly committed, and ideologically consistent body of work devoted to Lebanon’s sovereignty, independence, national identity, and future. Through years of persistent writing, publishing, documenting, and political commentary, Bejjani has established a recognizable voice within the Lebanese diaspora, particularly among those who advocate restoring the Lebanese state’s full authority and ending Iran’s influence through Hezbollah.
Publishing extensively in both Arabic and English through his website, eliasbejjaninews.com, Bejjani has demonstrated an exceptional level of personal dedication to his work. His output encompasses political analysis, historical documentation, commemorations of martyrs, religious reflections, and commentaries on developments in Lebanon and the wider Middle East. He frequently supplements his articles with videos and multimedia material, extending the reach of his message to Lebanese readers at home and throughout the diaspora, as well as to English-speaking audiences.
What distinguishes Bejjani’s work is not simply the firmness of his political positions, but also the persistence with which he continues to research, write, publish, and defend them. His journalism reflects a deeply held conviction that Lebanon’s independence is not merely a political objective, but a national and moral responsibility. His tone is often urgent, uncompromising, and confrontational, reflecting his belief that the country’s sovereignty, identity, and future are at stake.
I. His Core Ideological Framework
Bejjani approaches Lebanon’s crises through a clear distinction between the sovereign Lebanese state and what he considers successive forms of foreign domination and internal complicity. In his interpretation of modern Lebanese history, the country has endured successive periods of external interference, beginning with Palestinian armed organizations, followed by the Syrian Baathist regime, and culminating, in his view, in the Iranian regime’s influence through Hezbollah.
He regards Hezbollah not simply as a Lebanese political party or resistance movement, but as an Iranian-backed military organization operating according to the doctrine of Wilayat al-Faqih. He argues that its independent military structure has undermined the authority of the Lebanese state, compromised national decision-making, and contributed to Lebanon’s repeated involvement in regional conflicts. He also maintains that Hezbollah’s influence constrains the freedom of the Lebanese Shiite community, whose members, like other Lebanese citizens, should enjoy the right to determine their political future without coercion or armed domination.
Iran occupies a central place in Bejjani’s political analysis. He views the Iranian regime’s regional strategy and its support for armed proxies as fundamental threats to Lebanese sovereignty, regional stability, and the security of the wider international community.
These convictions have led him to advocate consistently for:
Full implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1559, 1680, and 1701, particularly regarding Lebanese sovereignty, the authority of the state, and the disarmament of armed groups outside its control.
Severing diplomatic relations with Iran and expelling its ambassador from Lebanon.
Ending Lebanon’s transformation into what he frequently describes as a permanent battleground or a regional mailbox for conflicts driven by foreign powers.
Establishing peace and mutual recognition between Lebanon and Israel under international auspices, which he considers a potential pathway toward resolving outstanding border issues, restoring stability, and enabling national recovery.
These positions form the foundation of his political writing and provide continuity across a substantial body of work produced over many years.
II. The Major Themes of His Writing
1. A Persistent Campaign Against Hezbollah and Iranian Influence
Opposition to Hezbollah and Iran is the most consistent theme in Bejjani’s political commentary. He repeatedly examines the consequences of Hezbollah’s military autonomy, its regional alliances, and its influence over Lebanese political institutions.
He attributes substantial responsibility to Hezbollah and the wider political system surrounding it for Lebanon’s political paralysis, recurring wars, displacement, and erosion of state authority. In some of his writings, he also addresses political assassinations, the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings, and the 2020 Beirut port explosion within his broader critique of armed organizations, political impunity, and Iranian influence.
A notable feature of his work is his refusal to accept the argument that Hezbollah’s weapons are indispensable to Lebanon’s protection. He instead maintains that genuine national security requires a sovereign state, a unified chain of command, and an army capable of defending the country under constitutional authority.
Bejjani also insists on distinguishing Hezbollah from the Lebanese Shiite community as a whole. He argues that no political or religious organization should claim exclusive authority to represent an entire community or determine the fate of its members through an independent armed structure.
His sustained attention to these issues reflects a long-term commitment to a single central objective: restoring the Lebanese state’s exclusive authority over weapons, security, and decisions concerning war and peace.
2. Criticism of Lebanon’s Political and Religious Leadership
Bejjani’s criticism extends beyond Hezbollah to political leaders, public officials, and religious figures whom he believes have failed to defend Lebanon’s sovereignty with sufficient determination.
He is particularly critical of leaders who, in his assessment, accommodate Hezbollah’s armed dominance, accept foreign interference, or avoid confronting the fundamental question of state authority. His language can be severe, and he sometimes employs terms such as subservience, political dependency, and dhimmitude to express his opposition to what he considers the surrender of national principles.
His criticism also reaches Christian politicians and clergy whom he believes bear a particular responsibility for defending Lebanon’s historical identity, constitutional pluralism, and independence.
This aspect of his writing demonstrates that his commitment to Lebanese sovereignty is not confined to criticizing one political organization or foreign power. He also directs his scrutiny toward those within Lebanon’s established political and religious institutions whom he considers responsible for the country’s continuing weakness.
For Bejjani, defending sovereignty requires more than declarations and patriotic rhetoric. It demands political courage, consistency, accountability, and a willingness to confront powerful interests when national principles are at stake.
3. Opposition to Political Islam
Another recurring element in Bejjani’s work is his opposition to political Islam when religious doctrine is used to justify political domination, armed expansion, or the subordination of national institutions to ideological authority.
His criticism encompasses both Shiite and Sunni expressions of political Islam that he considers incompatible with Lebanese sovereignty and pluralism. He frequently invokes painful episodes in Lebanon’s history, including the Aishiyeh massacre and the assassination of Dany Chamoun and his family, to underline his condemnation of political violence and the failure to achieve accountability for past crimes.
Historical remembrance occupies an important place in this work. Bejjani returns repeatedly to the experiences of victims, the sacrifices of martyrs, and the consequences of political extremism. His objective is not simply to recall past events, but to argue that national reconciliation cannot be built on forgetting victims, concealing responsibility, or denying historical suffering.
His approach reflects a belief that the preservation of Lebanon’s pluralistic identity requires both the defence of individual freedom and the rejection of any political project that places an ideological authority above the state.
4. His Position on Israel and the West
Bejjani’s support for Western engagement and his advocacy of Lebanese-Israeli peace distinguish his political outlook from that of many Lebanese and Arab commentators.
He has supported Israeli military actions when he believes they weaken Hezbollah or Iran’s regional influence. He also argues that direct negotiations and a peace agreement between Lebanon and Israel, conducted under appropriate international auspices, could help resolve longstanding border disputes and remove Lebanon from the cycle of recurring wars.
His position rests on the conviction that Lebanon should pursue its own national interests rather than remain subordinated to regional conflicts or the strategic priorities of Tehran.
At the same time, Bejjani criticizes Western governments, particularly certain US Democratic administrations, when he believes their policies have accommodated Iran or failed to confront the expansion of Iranian influence through armed proxies.
These views remain politically contentious in Lebanon and across the Arab world. Nevertheless, they form an integral part of his broader political project: a sovereign Lebanon, oriented toward democratic institutions and international partnerships, capable of determining its own future without armed coercion by domestic or foreign actors.
5. Lebanese Christian Identity, Faith, and Historical Memory
Beyond daily political developments, Bejjani devotes considerable attention to Lebanon’s Christian heritage, particularly its Maronite tradition, and to the historical experiences of Lebanese Christians.
His articles commemorate martyrs, national anniversaries, religious figures, and tragic events that have shaped the collective memory of Lebanese communities. Saint Charbel and other figures of Christian spirituality also appear in his religious writings, alongside biblical reflections and appeals to prayer, conscience, forgiveness, and moral responsibility.
These articles reveal another dimension of his commitment. For Bejjani, Lebanon is not merely a geographical territory or a political system; it is a historical and cultural homeland whose identity has been shaped by generations of sacrifice, faith, and attachment to freedom.
He frequently presents Lebanon’s Christian communities as important contributors to the country’s pluralistic character and historical connections with the West. His writing emphasizes the preservation of this heritage against ideological and political forces that he believes threaten Lebanon’s diversity and independence.
His commemorative and religious work also serves a personal and national purpose: keeping the memory of those who sacrificed their lives for Lebanon alive for younger generations, including Lebanese expatriates who may be geographically distant from their ancestral homeland.
6. Advocacy for International Action to Restore Sovereignty
Bejjani’s frustration with Lebanon’s prolonged political paralysis has led him, in some of his more forceful articles, to advocate stronger international involvement in restoring the authority of the Lebanese state.
He has described Lebanon as a country whose institutions have been weakened or effectively held hostage by armed and political interests. In this context, he has raised the possibility of international supervision or robust enforcement mechanisms under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter if Lebanese institutions prove unable to implement their obligations concerning sovereignty and security.
Such proposals are controversial and raise serious questions about national independence, constitutional legitimacy, and the practical limits of external intervention. They nevertheless illustrate the extent of Bejjani’s concern about the gap between Lebanon’s formal sovereignty and the state’s ability to exercise effective authority throughout its territory.
His willingness to advance such proposals also reflects his conviction that the crisis cannot be resolved through declarations alone. He calls for concrete implementation of international commitments and measures that, in his view, would allow Lebanon to recover the functions of a normal sovereign state.
III. The Characteristics of His Work
1. A Consistent and Uncompromising Voice
Bejjani writes with a sense of urgency and conviction. His vocabulary is frequently forceful, employing terms such as terrorism, occupation, betrayal, criminality, and the culture of death to describe what he considers threats to Lebanon’s independence.
This style reflects his belief that the country faces a fundamental struggle over its identity and future rather than a routine disagreement among political parties.
His uncompromising approach has helped establish a recognizable editorial identity. At the same time, the intensity of his language can limit opportunities for dialogue with those who disagree with his interpretations or policy proposals.
2. Sustained Publishing in Arabic and English
One of the most significant characteristics of Bejjani’s work is the persistence of his publishing activity. Through his website and associated media platforms, he maintains a substantial record of articles and commentaries in both Arabic and English.
This bilingual approach enables him to address two important audiences: Lebanese readers who follow political developments in their native language and international readers who seek perspectives on Lebanon’s internal crisis, Hezbollah, Iran, and the wider Middle East.
The combination of written articles and video material further expands his reach. It also reflects a willingness to adapt his publishing methods to changing media habits while maintaining his central editorial priorities.
Maintaining such a body of work requires sustained personal effort: identifying developments, formulating arguments, preparing articles, publishing material, and preserving a continuing record of political and historical events. His output demonstrates a long-term commitment to keeping Lebanese affairs in public discussion, even when the subjects are controversial or the political circumstances discouraging.
3. A Strong Moral and Religious Dimension
Bejjani’s political writing is frequently informed by Christian theology, biblical references, and appeals to conscience, shame, justice, and accountability before God and history.
He treats political responsibility as a moral question as well as a matter of constitutional order. In his view, silence in the face of injustice, the abandonment of victims, and the acceptance of political subordination are not merely strategic errors; they can also constitute failures of conscience.
This moral framework connects his political commentary with his religious and commemorative writings, giving his work a broader character than conventional daily political reporting.
4. Persistence, Volume, and Long-Term Commitment
Perhaps the most distinctive feature of Bejjani’s publishing career is its continuity. Over many years, he has returned to the same fundamental questions: Who exercises authority in Lebanon? Who controls the weapons? Who determines whether the country goes to war? And what must be done to restore genuine independence?
His continued engagement with these questions demonstrates a level of dedication that extends beyond occasional commentary or reaction to breaking news.
He has maintained his publishing work across political crises, regional wars, changing governments, and successive periods of uncertainty. Rather than abandoning his central concerns when public attention shifts elsewhere, he repeatedly returns to them, documenting events and connecting current developments to Lebanon’s longer historical experience.
Supporters of his outlook may regard this persistence as evidence of principle and personal commitment. Critics may see the same continuity as an indication that his analysis remains confined within a relatively fixed ideological framework. Both observations are relevant to understanding the nature of his work.
IV. Strengths and Criticisms
Strengths from a Sovereignty-Oriented Perspective
Bejjani’s principal contribution is his sustained insistence that Lebanon cannot function as a fully sovereign state while an armed organization maintains an independent military structure and exercises substantial influence over national decisions.
His criticism of Hezbollah’s relationship with Iran and his advocacy of state control over weapons and decisions of war and peace overlap with the positions of several Lebanese opposition figures and governments that regard Hezbollah’s military role as incompatible with full state authority.
He has also consistently drawn attention to United Nations resolutions, the importance of national accountability, and the need to prevent Lebanon from being drawn into conflicts driven by external interests.
Equally important is his commitment to documentation and remembrance. By repeatedly publishing articles about political developments, historical tragedies, religious occasions, and the sacrifices of Lebanese individuals and communities, he contributes to a continuing written record of the issues that shape his understanding of the country.
His bilingual publishing activity gives this record a wider potential audience and allows his arguments to circulate beyond Lebanon’s geographical boundaries.
Limitations and Criticisms
A balanced assessment must also acknowledge several limitations of his approach.
First, the centrality of Hezbollah and Iran in his analysis can leave less room for examining other causes of Lebanon’s crisis, including sectarian power-sharing arrangements, corruption across political communities, financial mismanagement, institutional weakness, and the responsibilities of the wider political establishment.
Second, his sharp language can make constructive engagement with opposing viewpoints more difficult. Political disagreement does not necessarily demonstrate disloyalty, and the distinctions between political compromise, ideological disagreement, and collaboration deserve careful examination.
Third, his support for Israeli military operations in certain circumstances and his advocacy of international supervision remain deeply controversial. These positions require consideration of civilian suffering, international law, Lebanese national interests, and the practical consequences of proposed security arrangements.
Finally, his emphasis on Christian historical memory, while central to his identity and editorial interests, may leave some readers seeking a broader account of the experiences and historical narratives of Lebanon’s other communities.
These criticisms do not erase the significance of his sustained publishing effort. Rather, they help distinguish the value of documenting a committed political viewpoint from the separate question of whether every interpretation or policy proposal within that viewpoint is persuasive.
V. Overall Assessment
Elias Bejjani can be described as a dedicated Lebanese expatriate writer, journalist, and political activist whose work is driven by a strong commitment to national sovereignty, independence, and the preservation of Lebanon’s distinctive identity.
His writing is advocacy journalism rather than detached academic analysis. It combines political argument, historical remembrance, religious reflection, and calls for action, all organized around a relatively consistent set of convictions.
What merits particular recognition is the persistence with which he has pursued these subjects over many years. He has continued to write, publish, document, and comment on Lebanon’s crises in both Arabic and English, seeking to keep questions of sovereignty, accountability, national identity, and foreign interference before the public.
His work reflects a belief that journalism should not merely record events but also challenge prevailing narratives, preserve historical memory, and defend principles that the writer considers essential to the nation’s survival.
At the heart of Bejjani’s political project is the conviction that Lebanon cannot recover its independence while decisions about war and peace remain outside the effective authority of its constitutional institutions. He therefore calls for the restoration of state sovereignty, the implementation of international resolutions, the end of Iranian political and military domination, and the establishment of a stable Lebanon capable of determining its own future.
His positions on Hezbollah, Iran, Israel, and international intervention remain open to legitimate debate and criticism. Yet his sustained commitment to expressing and documenting those positions is an important part of understanding his place within Lebanese diaspora journalism.
Ultimately, Bejjani’s body of work represents more than a series of isolated political commentaries. It is a continuing personal and editorial undertaking shaped by his attachment to Lebanon and his determination to keep its sovereignty and future at the centre of public discussion.
Whether readers agree or disagree with his conclusions, the consistency of his efforts, the breadth of his publishing activity, and his continued engagement with Lebanon’s political and historical struggles demonstrate a longstanding commitment to the causes he has chosen to defend.
